You misunderstand the optimisation principle. A project that makes $1 a day but is impossible to modify to make new projects is not a valid project. A project that requires an hour of maintainance everyday is not a valid project.
The point of my approach is TIME optimisation. For this, you have to automate - it is the first step of time optimisation. If you are not automating, or automation was not built into your plan before you started, you are doing it wrong.
What you have is the first iteration - my method would take all the ones above $1, then optimise the time spent maintaining it till it became minimal. If it were not possible to optimise it in that method, then someone external can be brought in, who maintains it for half the income, giving you absolute free time to make the next project.
I did not speak about bad performers yet - the projects who do not make the required $1. It's not possible to follow this system without hitting some duds. You spend a reasonable amount of time trying to bring it up, if it does not work, you have to get rid of it. You are optimising your time, so you cannot afford to do something that does not warrant the time spent on it.
> A project that makes $1 a day but is impossible to modify to make new projects is not a valid project.
Ok, this reduces the number of 'possible projects' considerably.
> A project that requires an hour of maintainance everyday is not a valid project.
Obviously, because at 1 hour of maintenance every day you'd be doing less than 15 projects total if you need some sleep.
But even the most trivial piece of software requires some maintenance. And at 400 projects you can spend no more than half a day per year building and maintaining, and that includes saturdays and sundays. Better hope you're single, if you're not you will be by the end of that year.
> For this, you have to automate - it is the first step of time optimisation. If you are not automating, or automation was not built into your plan before you started, you are doing it wrong.
This more or less limits you to very superficial sites that do nothing but aggregate other content or that are extremly thin variations on a theme.
Which is possible, but then it becomes hard to make that 1$ / day.
> What you have is the first iteration - my method would take all the ones above $1, then optimise the time spent maintaining it till it became minimal.
That sounds very theoretical, I think instead of keeping in the theoretical realm that you should actually do this, and write about how well it works. That would make for some very interesting reading.
> If it were not possible to optimise it in that method, then someone external can be brought in, who maintains it for half the income, giving you absolute free time to make the next project.
Why would they maintain it for half the income, if it was trivial to build they could build it themselves and keep 100%?
> I did not speak about bad performers yet - the projects who do not make the required $1. It's not possible to follow this system without hitting some duds.
Count on the majority, not just 'some'.
> You spend a reasonable amount of time trying to bring it up,
What's a reasonably amount of time here? A day ? There goes at $50 / hour one year of your income, assuming this is not a dud!
Again, I've been trying to do this, yes, using adsense, that old and so 2006 method of making money on small sites.
But I've yet to find something that works better, in spite of trying several different ad networks. And other monetization schemes are a lot more labour intensive.
This is a great idea in theory, but trust me it is very hard to execute in practice.
The point of my approach is TIME optimisation. For this, you have to automate - it is the first step of time optimisation. If you are not automating, or automation was not built into your plan before you started, you are doing it wrong.
What you have is the first iteration - my method would take all the ones above $1, then optimise the time spent maintaining it till it became minimal. If it were not possible to optimise it in that method, then someone external can be brought in, who maintains it for half the income, giving you absolute free time to make the next project.
I did not speak about bad performers yet - the projects who do not make the required $1. It's not possible to follow this system without hitting some duds. You spend a reasonable amount of time trying to bring it up, if it does not work, you have to get rid of it. You are optimising your time, so you cannot afford to do something that does not warrant the time spent on it.